Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2008, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's incredibly short-sighted.

Had Japan not attacked the US, the US oil embargo would have strangled the Japanese economy causing it to collapse, leaving the government weak and unable to repel attackers.

If the US had not entered WW II on the side of the Allies, the UK may have taken Hess up on Hitler's offer. Imagine a powerful German Union allied with colonial UK. They could have cut off resources to the US and throttled its economy. Then as now, you can't make military vehicles without rubber imported from the South Pacific. It'd be real hard to defend your country on a GDP of $3,471.95

Chess-masters are masters because they have incredible foresight.

Guys like Fischer and Kasparov and others can look at your first move and in an instant play out several thousand games in their mind covering every possible permutation of moves over the course of the next 100 moves.

That's why you can't beat them, because they already know the outcome of the match.

The country that can see 35-40 years into the future, and envision how the world might be or how they want the world to be, and then takes action to ensure the outcome, is the country that will be a super-power 35-40 years from now.

The country that does nothing is the one that will be an also-ran has-been.
No country can see 30-40 years into the future, and the US has proven over and over again that we cannot even see 30 days into the future. You are assuming that both the Japanese and the Germans would have been able to maintian an empire as expansive as a quarter of the world, for a century. You are also assuming that the US would not have been able to create trade with a world that is dominated by a few superpowers. Cuba would be happy to trade with us, right from the outset, and we are unilaterally responsible for virtually all the intreansigence that has beset the globe in our lifetimes.

Historians nearly always, when they try to play "what if", conclude that things would have turned out pretty much the same, no matter which dexision was made at turning points. It turned out after WWII that it was the Russians, not the Germans who dominated a third of Europe for the next 40 years. But what, in the long run, was the difference?

If South American had chosen to enter WWII, instead of "doing nothing", are you going to try to convince me that South America would not still be an "also ran"?

Also, don't forget that chess masters play by rules. When participants do not play by the rules, it is a great deal more problematic to look 30 moves ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2008, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
No country can see 30-40 years into the future, and the US has proven over and over again that we cannot even see 30 days into the future.
Sure they can. The US realized that if Japan controlled all the raw materials in the South Pacific and Southeast Asia, including the shipping lanes, it would be a threat to the economic security of the US, which is why the US levied an oil embargo against Japan in the first place.

If Russia should control Central Asia, and the mostly light grade crude oil reserves that are 3 to 5 times the size of the Middle East, they would not merely control the supply of those resources, but also the currency in which they're sold on the world market. Even a little brain knows Russia would not be selling it in US Dollars, and that would threaten the future economic security of the US.

While you might be willing to take a risk and do nothing, you can't accept the consequences and would be whining and crying. You can talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk. The proof is the fact that you're on the internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You are assuming that both the Japanese and the Germans would have been able to maintian an empire as expansive as a quarter of the world, for a century.
And why couldn't they?

They'd be allied with the Brits, and have the benefit and guidance from the colonial empire they maintained for over 2 centuries, and they'd have the largest navy, army and air force on the planet, not to mention they would control every critical access point in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You are also assuming that the US would not have been able to create trade with a world that is dominated by a few superpowers. Cuba would be happy to trade with us, right from the outset, and we are unilaterally responsible for virtually all the intreansigence that has beset the globe in our lifetimes.
Yeah, all the sugar cane we could ever want. Transported overland by what?

No rubber, no tires for trucks or cars or planes. All the rubber came out of Southeast Asia, which the Japanese allied with the Germans and Brits would have controlled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
If South American had chosen to enter WWII, instead of "doing nothing", are you going to try to convince me that South America would not still be an "also ran"?
South America was nothing, and still is nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Also, don't forget that chess masters play by rules. When participants do not play by the rules, it is a great deal more problematic to look 30 moves ahead.
That's what contingency planning is for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2008, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflores View Post
This war in Iraq should of been over a long time ago.
Why?

Do you have some sort of logical argument for that?

Your underlying premise has to be correct. You're assuming, without any basis in fact, that the US intended to get in and get out.

If Iraq figured prominently in your geo-strategy, then at the end of the first Gulf War, what could you have done to create a reason to remain in Iraq indefinitely?

You could promise to provide economic and military aid to the Kurds and Shi'a if they rebelled against Saddam.

When the Kurds and Shi'a rebelled, you would then turn a blind eye and look away, failing to deliver the promised economic and military aid, they'd be slaughtered.

Now you can use that as a justification to establish open-ended "No-Fly Zones" for an indefinite period of time, like about 12 years or so until you could find a justification to invade Iraq, depose the leader and establish military bases.

Since your next move is into southwest Iran, you'd want to have some excuse to keep as many troops as possible in Iraq, and at least two carrier battle groups with two amphibious ready groups in the Persian Gulf and a third carrier battle group within striking distance in the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean or off the coast of eastern Africa.

That would allow you to keep the 12-14 combat brigades you need to accomplish that mission in place indefinitely until you were ready to act.

Just something to think about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36644
Mircea, you are missing my point. Historically, you can look at what we DID do, and conclude that the world did not come to an end, so you say decisions were right, as opposed to cataclysmic. The challenge is for you to counter that by citing something that was historically done with faulty foresight. You are in a box. You are contending that everything was done with perfect foresight, and therefore avoided an apocalypse. The fact that we are still alvie is not proof that all foresight was infallible. You can have no way, even in retrospect, to determine what would have happened had policies been otherwise.

We have the US blocking access to oil to Japan, and Japan blocking US access to rubber. Why was a war necessary to resolve this deadock? Why are you so sure the Japanese and the US could not have settled the matter with the simple expedient of two superpowers trading oil for rubber?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 07:17 AM
 
448 posts, read 1,585,391 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Why?

Do you have some sort of logical argument for that?

Your underlying premise has to be correct. You're assuming, without any basis in fact, that the US intended to get in and get out.

If Iraq figured prominently in your geo-strategy, then at the end of the first Gulf War, what could you have done to create a reason to remain in Iraq indefinitely?

You could promise to provide economic and military aid to the Kurds and Shi'a if they rebelled against Saddam.

When the Kurds and Shi'a rebelled, you would then turn a blind eye and look away, failing to deliver the promised economic and military aid, they'd be slaughtered.

Now you can use that as a justification to establish open-ended "No-Fly Zones" for an indefinite period of time, like about 12 years or so until you could find a justification to invade Iraq, depose the leader and establish military bases.

Since your next move is into southwest Iran, you'd want to have some excuse to keep as many troops as possible in Iraq, and at least two carrier battle groups with two amphibious ready groups in the Persian Gulf and a third carrier battle group within striking distance in the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean or off the coast of eastern Africa.

That would allow you to keep the 12-14 combat brigades you need to accomplish that mission in place indefinitely until you were ready to act.

Just something to think about.
Hello my friend, what have we accomplished in this war, we got saddam, we didnt find the wmd's, thats it there is nothing else to do there....Those people dont want our help, for all i care let em kill each other. Sad but true, I wont lose any tears when they go ahead and kill each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 07:18 AM
 
448 posts, read 1,585,391 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Mircea, you are missing my point. Historically, you can look at what we DID do, and conclude that the world did not come to an end, so you say decisions were right, as opposed to cataclysmic. The challenge is for you to counter that by citing something that was historically done with faulty foresight. You are in a box. You are contending that everything was done with perfect foresight, and therefore avoided an apocalypse. The fact that we are still alvie is not proof that all foresight was infallible. You can have no way, even in retrospect, to determine what would have happened had policies been otherwise.

We have the US blocking access to oil to Japan, and Japan blocking US access to rubber. Why was a war necessary to resolve this deadock? Why are you so sure the Japanese and the US could not have settled the matter with the simple expedient of two superpowers trading oil for rubber?
why dont we all hold hands and sing kumbaya, that will accomplish alot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36644
Quote:
Originally Posted by jflores View Post
why dont we all hold hands and sing kumbaya, that will accomplish alot

Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 09:48 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,151 posts, read 15,578,521 times
Reputation: 17139
The conflict with the Japanese during WW2 was over a LOT more than commodities access. There were several incidents leading up to Pearl Harbor where Japanese aircraft attacked US ships and there was also the little issue of their alliance with Germany thus becoming an Axis nation. The Axis alliance goal was world domination..period. WW2 was unavoidable. No amount of diplomacy or placation was going to stop it and the US stayed out of the war until we were directly attacked by Japan. At least in the role of active combat. Our greatest ally ( Great Britain) was being razed to the ground and though we supported them with certain amounts of material it took our pPacific fleet getting a crippling blow before we jumped off the fence. War is never a good thing, people die and it takes decades for nations to recover only for the vicious cycle to start again. However, sometimes, it is necessary. We have failed to learn from history and are thereby doomed to repeat it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,772,693 times
Reputation: 36644
If you go back to my post #4, you will see that none of my four conditins were present for us to go to war against Japan. Particularly my fourth point. The US was perfectly capable of repelling a Japnese attack on our territory. We just slept through it. While Japan had the intent and capacity to expand its imperial claims in the western Pacific, it was not a genuing threat to the safety of Americans at home, and the US had sufficient defensive forces at Pearl Harbot to repel the Japanese attack. We simply did not do it---but our failure to defend our territory did not constitute a justifiable reason for us to destroy Japan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2008, 10:18 AM
 
448 posts, read 1,585,391 times
Reputation: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion?
Quite a bit actually, but simpletons cant understand the subliminal message behind some jest. We can't rewrite history, so why are you arguing about WWII. Do you really think peace wouldve solved anything, I mean seriously they only bombed Pearl Harbor. Maybe after they knocked down the towers, we should have a sit down with some bbq and beer to discuss ways to avoid such crimes.

There will always be war in this world, sorry to inform you of that, perhaps CNN can have it scroll on the bottom of your tv.

Go outside, its a nice day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top